W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: scott lewis <scotfl@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:57:07 -0600
Message-ID: <b1641bec0910190957q4d39e15dgf70e3ad1a7add6b0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Monday, October 19, 2009, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 22:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>
> For now, there seems to be lazy consensus for doing RDFa (we have a FPWD),
>
>
> If this is how FPWD is interpreted even within the WG, maybe the idea of taking on multiple FPWDs some of which may get abandoned as tombstone Notes isn't working out.
>
> At least I thought that when Sam encouraged a plurality of competing drafts the idea was to gauge which ones the WG ends up actually 'doing' some time after FPWD.
>
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that this WG made a decision to work on RDFa, and publish it as FPWD, but, unless I'm missing something, did *not* do that for Microdata (which was suddenly dropped into the spec, and which has been controversial since).

There was no decision to publish HTML5+RDFa, only a call for lazy
consensus. Lazy consensus is simply a call for objections -- not a
gauge of support. Absence of opposition does not imply presence of
support.

As I understood the chair's proposal, the WG is to be liberal in what
working drafts we publish, but conservative on the drafts we move
further down the standards track. I may be wrong in that
interpretation, however.

sfl.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 17:41:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT